sebi:WTM/KMA/OIAE/383/05/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Restrained the company and its directors from accessing the securities market and from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, till all pending investor grievances are resolved and confirmed by SEBI.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15A
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15C
Parties
- Kaleidoscope Films Limited
- Mr. Prakash B. Debar
- Ms. Smita Mahendra Pandya
- Mr. Sarju Jayantilal Parikh
Holding
SEBI restrained Kaleidoscope Films Limited and its directors Mr. Prakash B. Debar, Ms. Smita Mahendra Pandya and Mr. Sarju Jayantilal Parikh from accessing the securities market and from dealing in securities directly or indirectly until all pending investor grievances are resolved and confirmed by SEBI.
Full text
Page 2 of 6 secretary), vide letter dated November 21, 2008. While informing the Company of its lapse in submitting the report, its attention was again drawn to Section 15C of the SEBI Act and advised it to resolve the complaints and submit a status report within seven days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The Company was also informed that if it fails to do so, SEBI may initiate such action as deemed appropriate including initiation of adjudication proceedings. The said letter was also acknowledged. Similar letter dated December 4, 2008, was also sent to Mr. Prakash B. Debar, one of the directors of the Company. Since no response was received inspite of receiving such letters from SEBI, a reminder was sent to the Company, vide letter dated December 19, 2008, advising it to resolve all investor grievances and to submit a status report within seven days of receipt of the said letter. Thereafter, the Company vide letter dated December 27, 2008, requested for more time to trace out the complaints and for submission of the status report. The Company also submitted that most of the complaints were already resolved. Thereafter, the Company vide letter dated February 26, 2009 submitted an incomplete Action Taken Report and stated that many complaints were repeated. Since, the Action Taken Report filed on behalf of the Company was deficient in certain aspects, the same was brought to the attention of the Company by SEBI, vide letter dated February 13,
Page 3 of 6 the same and in the light of the Company’s failure to provide a complete action taken report, SEBI issued a notice dated November 6, 2009, under Sections 11B and 11(4)(b) of the SEBI Act, requiring the Company to show cause as to why it should not be restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibit it from dealing in securities till such time the pending investor grievances are resolved. Similar notices dated November 10, 2009 were also issued to the directors of the Company namely, Mr. Sarju Jayantilal Parikh, Ms. Smita Mahendra Pandya and Mr. Praksah B. Dhebar. All the aforesaid notices were acknowledged by the concerned parties. Subsequently, the Company, vide letter dated November 26, 2009, while referring to the show cause notice dated November 10, 2009 and letter dated September 25, 2008, once again submitted an incomplete action taken report. According to the Company, it had received 118 complaints from SEBI and out of the same, 20 complaints were repeated and that 75 complaints were old which were pertaining to the period prior to the year 2006 and that only 23 complaints remained. It was further submitted by the Company that the said 23 complaints were also resolved and requested SEBI to withdraw the show cause notices. After examination of the said reply, SEBI vide letter dated January 21, 2010 informed the Company that the action taken reports did not contain proof of redressal, such as copies of letters sent to the investors and the dispatc
Page 4 of 6 Subsequently, the Company vide letter dated August 3, 2010 stated that it had already submitted its replies (Action Taken Reports) to the Western Regional Office, Ahmedabad in two phases and that the 3rd compilation is in progress. It enclosed copies of the 1st and 2nd Action Taken Report s along with the said letter. A request for extension of hearing schedule was also made in the said letter. In view of the same, the personal hearing was re-scheduled to September 7, 2010. On the date of the hearing, the Company was represented by Mr. Sarju Parikh and Mr. Sandip Shah, as authorized by the Company appeared and requested time for submitting the proof of dispatch to the complainants, which was accordingly granted. Thereafter, the Company vide letter dated September 20, 2010 enclosed copies of only 41 letters sent to the investors informing the resolution of their complaints out of 88 pending complaints. In the said 41 cases also, there was no proof of redressal and other enclosures as required inter alia in terms of SEBI circular OIAE/Cir-1/2009 dated November 25, 2009. Annexure C attached to the said circular prescribe a proforma of Action Taken Report for sending responses to SEBI in respect of investor grievances. Inspite of more than two years afforded to the Company and its directors for redressal of the complaints reckoned from the date of issue of the SEBI notice dated September 25, 2008, the Company failed to redress all the complaints and submit proper docu
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/KMA/OIAE/383/05/2011. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.